Kindly Log In

Democratic senators offer alternative to Brown's funding formula

April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013

Democratic leaders of the state Senate want to delay Gov. Brown’s sweeping plan for changing how schools are funded by a year and will recommend significant changes to it in a bill that they will reveal on Thursday.

In a news release Tuesday, Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg and chairs of the Senate Budget and Education Committees stated they agree with the “fundamental goals and concepts” behind Brown’s Local Control Funding Formula.

CSBA’s price of support: $5 billion more

The California School Boards Association has indicated it would back Gov. Jerry Brown’s new funding formula for schools, but only if the governor delivers at least an additional $5 billion to raise the level of spending for all students. Failing that, CSBA, which represents elected trustees at some 1,000 California school districts, will lobby legislators to delay providing all of the extra money for poor students and English learners that Brown has proposed in his Local Control Funding Formula.

“While we support the general concept of recognizing the additional needs of low income students and ELs (English learners), those investments can’t come at the expense of restoring the Base funding for the cuts that school districts have experienced the last five years,” the CSBA wrote in a 21-page position paper, done by consultant Rob Manwaring, that it has forwarded to Brown and to legislators.

The gap between the national and state per pupil spending has grown. Since 2009-20, it has widened further to about $4,000, according to CSBA (click to enlarge).

California districts have seen their base level funding, known as the revenue limit, cut by 22.7 percent. Under the LCFF, the state would fully restore the district average revenue limit in 2007-08: $6,817. On top of that, for every poor child or English learner, a district would receive an additional $2,375, plus a concentration bonus, starting when disadvantaged students comprise a majority of students in a district. Brown has promised that no district will receive less money under the formula than it got last year.

CSBA, which represents both poor and wealthy districts, doesn’t disagree with Brown’s contention that disadvantaged students need more money; it accepts Brown’s level of extra funding, 35 percent more per high-needs student and the same amount in the concentration grant.

But it contends that, despite the administration’s claim, many districts won’t get back to 2007-08, the high point in district revenue before the recession, for several reasons. Six years ago, about half the districts got more than the average revenue limit; those with substantial numbers of high-needs students will make up in supplemental dollars what they would lose in revenue limit dollars under the LCFF, but those districts with few of those favored students may not get back what they would lose. Furthermore, back in 2007-08, districts saw money for earmarked programs, called categoricals, cut 20 percent. These include basic programs, like maintaining buildings, training teachers and purchasing textbooks. Here, too, districts with few targeted students would not recover that money or the cost-of-living adjustments that would have accrued to it.

CSBA estimates that it would require an additional $5 billion to make all districts whole, a figure that the Department of Finance believes is too high, Nick Schweizer of the Department said on Tuesday. CSBA Assistant Executive Director Dennis Meyers said that one option would be to go to voters in 2014 or 2016 to ask for more funding. Another would be to fund the base amount at a faster rate than the supplemental money for high-needs students.

All of the funding problems would disappear if California raised its per-student funding level to the national average, which is what CSBA ultimately favors. That would be a heavy lift, since, by one measure, accounting for regional cost differences, California’s funding is 49th in the nation, and lagging the national average by $4,017, according to CSBA’s data. CSBA said that raising spending to the national average, while keeping Brown’s formula intact, would raise the base level funding about $1,000 per student, assuming California raised the money in one fell swoop next year. But the national average is a moving target, and other states will likely raise education spending, too, over the seven years in which Brown plans to phase in the LCFF. Thus, CSBA estimates that California would need to come up with billions more to match other states’ increases.

But the forthcoming Senate Bill 69 will include measures to make districts more accountable for the extra spending on low-income students and English learners that the proposal will provide. It will also eliminate a key feature of the formula: bonus dollars awarded to districts in which high-needs students constitute a majority, on the grounds that high concentrations of poverty present additional challenges.

Under Brown’s formula, all students would receive a base grant that restores most of the money that districts have lost since 2007-08. In addition, districts would receive an additional 35 percent – about $2,375 – for every English learner or low-income child. The concentration grant would be phased in on top of that. For districts with only high-needs students, it would provide an extra 18 percent: $1,120 per child – a significant boost for urban districts like Fresno, Santa Ana and Long Beach.

SB 69 would redirect the money for the concentration grant – about $2.5 billion, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office – to increase the base funding and the supplemental 35 percent grant, although specifics weren’t disclosed. Senators said they want to insure that all districts have spending restored to pre-recession levels.

That approach responds to critics in suburban districts with few high-needs students who say the base amount would be too low (see accompanying piece) and the concentration grant would apply to too many districts.

However, Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, an Oakland-based advocacy group that supports Brown’s plan, said that research on the struggles of children in high-poverty schools justifies a concentration grant. “The loss of a concentration factor would be a concern,” Lempert said. “There would have to be a strong rationale for that to go away.”

At the same time, Lempert said, he is encouraged that Senate Democrats are endorsing Brown’s overall plan. “It shows how far we have come; last year, it (Brown’s proposal) was not taken seriously.”

While “appreciating that the Senate is now engaged,” Lempert said he wants negotiations to continue and the plan to be adopted without a year’s delay.

Brown would give local districts more control over how state money would be spent; he would eliminate most state-directed programs called categoricals. However, districts would have to direct supplemental money to high-needs students and write a plan, subject to public hearings and a review by the county office of education, detailing how outcomes for those students would be improved.

SB 69 would add teeth to the accountability measures. It would give the state the authority “to intervene and support” districts failing to achieve state goals; districts could have spending restrictions reimposed if there’s no academic progress for subgroups of students, according to the news release.

Comments Policy

Rob Manwaring6 years ago6 years ago

The suggestion of a school level concentration factor continues to come up. And it might be appealing if it did not create a horrible incentive to further segregate our schools and to end school choice programs like those in San Francisco that offer greater choice to low income students. Basically, under a school site concentration system, a district could make more money if it consolidates its low income students into some of its schools and … Read More

The suggestion of a school level concentration factor continues to come up. And it might be appealing if it did not create a horrible incentive to further segregate our schools and to end school choice programs like those in San Francisco that offer greater choice to low income students. Basically, under a school site concentration system, a district could make more money if it consolidates its low income students into some of its schools and keep all of the middle class students in other schools. This may not happen all at once, but next time a district is redrawing its attendance boundaries it is difficult to believe that this fiscal benefit of segregation would not play a role. This would clearly be a step in the wrong direction.

navigio6 years ago6 years ago

FWIW, this incentive already exists. Not only does title 1 kick in at a specific threshold, but the distinction between school-wide and targeted programs is also based on a threshold. Regardless, there are myriad other 'incentives' that are working to re-segragate our schools; school 'choice' and human nature among them. The idea of school concentrations is that a district level policy could impact a 95% f&r school in exactly the same way it impacts a … Read More

FWIW, this incentive already exists. Not only does title 1 kick in at a specific threshold, but the distinction between school-wide and targeted programs is also based on a threshold. Regardless, there are myriad other ‘incentives’ that are working to re-segragate our schools; school ‘choice’ and human nature among them. The idea of school concentrations is that a district level policy could impact a 95% f&r school in exactly the same way it impacts a 5% f&r school. That also makes little sense, unless of course the goal is to usurp those funds for general education uses…

Paul Muench6 years ago6 years ago

If this idea really works any impact of district action will ne negligible. Parents will do the segregating way before any beuaracracy can act.

Jeannette Webber6 years ago6 years ago

I think it is imperative that the Governor and the legislators review accurate and current COMPLETE income for all districts before making these decisions. Many districts, including LAUSD, which hosts many, many ELL students and those receiving free/reduced meals, already receive, more money through categorical spending and programs than they do through base revenue limits. It is irresponsible to the educational system, to taxpayers and indeed all stakeholders, to allocate additional funds without … Read More

I think it is imperative that the Governor and the legislators review accurate and current COMPLETE income for all districts before making these decisions. Many districts, including LAUSD, which hosts many, many ELL students and those receiving free/reduced meals, already receive, more money through categorical spending and programs than they do through base revenue limits. It is irresponsible to the educational system, to taxpayers and indeed all stakeholders, to allocate additional funds without adequately reviewing the efficacy of the funds. Why do low wealth districts, in some cases, have strong academic results? It is not only because the students have three squares and some parents can afford tutors, nor only because teachers choose to work here. Additionally, parents get connected to school and students, parents send their kids to school with high regularity and parents attend school events and teacher conferences. Parents believe, and tell their children, that formal education matters. Model some successful academic behaviors–and follow that up with money, not just feel good qualifications. Please look at TOTAL state and federal dollars!

Paul6 years ago6 years ago

Another year's delay for the new funding formula...sigh.
Regarding the sidebar, "CSBA’s price of support: another $5 billion in funding", perhaps the CSBA will discontinue its "how to lay off teachers" seminar series if it wins the extra money. The CSBA endorses temporary teachers, blanket non-reelection, and layoffs. It's an organization that cares more about keeping teachers' salaries low and consolidating management's power over teachers than about increasing educational quality. Read More

Another year’s delay for the new funding formula…sigh.

Regarding the sidebar, “CSBA’s price of support: another $5 billion in funding”, perhaps the CSBA will discontinue its “how to lay off teachers” seminar series if it wins the extra money. The CSBA endorses temporary teachers, blanket non-reelection, and layoffs. It’s an organization that cares more about keeping teachers’ salaries low and consolidating management’s power over teachers than about increasing educational quality.

navigio6 years ago6 years ago

“districts could have spending restrictions re-imposed if there’s no academic progress for subgroups of students, according to the news release.”

eek. I wonder if the bill will define the targets, or whether it will be left to the districts to define success.

Paul Muench6 years ago6 years ago

I’ve moaned enough about the concentration factor being district based that I have to speak up and say I’m glad to see an alternative plan. I think a school based concentration factor would be a compromise, but still glad to see this alternate approach.